Disposed

K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2014WP/2489/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions by allowing withdrawal of an impugned order and directing authorities to grant fresh hearings within three months. Protecting measures for petitioners were continued until communication of adverse orders.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for fresh hearings within three months; protection continued pending adverse orders; no order as to costs.

K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited and Anr. Vs City and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1-pil6.13 with wp2489.13.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2013

¶5

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur, of Navi Mumbai, Age 52 years, Indian inhabitant, residing at F8/RH6/Sector 6, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 having PAN No. AADPT0874G, Mobile No. 9820217381 and email id. [email protected] District Thane.

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, a statutory body Incorporated under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, having its office at Belapur Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.

¶9

2 The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and having its office at CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.

¶10

3 K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. a Company registered under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Construction House “A”, 24^th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052. Dist. Thane. ...Respondents

¶11

1/5

¶12

1-pil6.13 with wp2489.13.sxw

¶13

ssm 2

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.2489 OF 2013

¶16

1 K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956, having its registered office at Plot No. C-30, Block 'G', Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.

¶17

2 Mr. Ramesh Valecha, a Shareholder of K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited, having his office at Plot No. C-30, Block 'G', Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. ....Petitioners

¶18

Vs.

¶19

1 City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited having its registered office at “Nirmal”, 2^nd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

¶20

2 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, having its office at 1^st Floor, Belapur Bhavan, CBD, Navi Mumbai 400 614. ...Respondents

¶21

Mr. Sandeep S. Thakur, Petitioner in person in PIL/6/13. Mr. G.S. Hegde i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for Respondent No.2 in PIL/6/13 and for Respondent No.1 in WP/2489/13.

¶22

Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Mr. Himanshu Vidhani i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Petitioners in WP/2489/13 and for Respondent No.3 in PIL/6/13.

¶23

2/5

¶24

1-pil6.13 with wp2489.13.sxw

¶25

ssm 3

¶26

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶27

A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 16 APRIL 2014

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT:-(PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶29

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶30

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶31

2 In pursuance to order dated 27 February 2014, the learned

¶32

counsel Mr. G.S. Hegde, appearing for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 and Respondent No.2 in PIL No. 6 of 2013, on instructions, makes statement that they are withdrawing order dated 22 January 2013 passed by the Manager (Town Services-I) and will give fresh hearing to the parties in respect of show cause notices dated 4 August 2011 and 26 August 2011.

¶33

3 The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 is at liberty to file additional document and/or reply, if any. The concerned authorities to pass order by giving opportunity to all the concerned.

¶34

4 The learned counsel Mr. G.S. Hegde also makes statement,

¶35

on instructions, that they are willing to hear the Petitioner in PIL No. 6

¶36

3/5

¶37

ssm 4 1-pil6.13 with wp2489.13.sxw

¶38

of 2013-Mr. Sandeep S. Thakur. The learned Senior counsel Mr. Iqbal Chagla opposing the same and contended that there is no question of hearing the Petitioner in PIL No. 6 of 2013 by the RespondentAuthority. However, as the Authority, in view of above statement, is willing to hear the Petitioner in PIL No. 6 of 2013, let them to do so, subject to respective objections, if any. All points are kept open.

¶39

5 Pending this Petition, pursuant to order dated 19 January 2012, the protection, as granted, has been in force till this date. Therefore, in view of above, we are willing to continue the protection till the date of communication of adverse order if any, to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 and six weeks thereafter.

¶40

6 Undertaking dated 29 October 2013 in the affidavit given by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 will continue till the final decision and six weeks thereafter.

¶41

7 Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 and Respondent No.2 in PIL No. 6 of 2013, to take the decision as early as possible, preferably within three months from today in accordance

¶42

4/5

¶43

1-pil6.13 with wp2489.13.sxw

¶44

ssm 5

¶45

with law.

¶46

8 In view of above, both Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2013 and

¶47

PIL No. 6 of 2013 are disposed of, with liberty. There shall be no

¶48

order as to costs.

¶49

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶50

5/5

K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Raheja Corp. Private Limited and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatray Chandrakant Vasolkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Sharad Hanmant Beske Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Kishor Tukaram Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mansing Ganpat Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Anil Vitthal Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.